Hi, everybody,
I just got back home from GenCon about 2 hours ago and am
trying to hold onto consciousness after two nights of V:TES
passed the 4 o'clock hour in the A.M.
Thursday, Joe Churchill judged the tournament, so I'll leave
it to him to comment on that day. Rumor has it that a deck
constructed under 4CL that focused around intercept won?!
On Friday, we had a draft tournament, originally supposed to
be Rochester. Scott Larabee, bless his soul, took our advise
to let us run our own draft format. Among those in attendance,
we went with a Michigan draft. About 25 players participated.
I'm thinking Dave Tatu won, but my sleepiness is telling me
Jared Strait might have won....and my notes are at home not
with me here at work where I had to come fix some things.....
Better, stop there.... Galen Cruze had a VP with a 3
players with 0. The winner got about half a box worth of
AH, DS, and Sabbat. The others got significant numbers as
well.
Friday night, we played some informal after consuming alcoholic
beverages with Robert Goudie, Dave Tatu, Keith Thompson, Joe
Churchill, Mike Courtouis, and myself in attendance. In the
last game, I was quickly ousted at 4 a.m. and allowed to go
get some sleep to judge on Saturday.
Saturday was the Championship event with Jarett Welch capturing
the title after eeking into the final round with only 5 VP's.
Dave Tatu was in with 9, Robert Goudie with 10, Keith Thompson
with 6.5, and Greg Ciallella with 7 were the other finalists.
There were 22 people to start the event with
Jarret's deck was Presence bleed with some votes, and he will
hopefully be e-mailing his deck to me soon for posting and for
inclusion in the Fragment. Every player also got Championship Event
t-shirts with some Necromancy card that I can't remember either
on them (Compel the Spirit?) Jarett received a goblet consisting
of a porcelain skull mounted on a pewter base valued at over
$150 plus a king's ransom in AH, DS, and Sabbat.
Saturday night, Scott Larabee and Dave Whose-last-name-I-can't-
remember were kind enough to give us the remaining sealed V:TES
starters and boosters for an informal draft tournament later
that night with 8 participants. When the second round was
completed at 5 a.m. most of us left in exhaustion and split of
the rest of the cards. Robert Goudie, Dave Tatu, Joe Churchill,
Jesse whose-last-name-I-can't-remember-but-it-was-German, Galen
Cruze, Keith Thompson, Mike Courtouis, and myself participated.
Sunday morning, I awoke in a panic at about 10 thinking it was
the middle of the afternoon and leapt into the shower only to
come out and realise it was only 9:30 a.m. When I arrived at
the convention, no one was to be found and after playing a
couple demos (Mechwarrior 3 computer game, Battletech miniatures,
Babylon 5 Space Combat Simulator) and getting a steal on some
Star Wars RPG books, I decided it was a hopeless cause and headed
home at 3:30 in the afternoon.
Overall, thinks went very smoothly. Everyone had fun (I hope),
and no one walked away empty handed from any event. Next year,
WotC wants V:EKN to be more involved in planning events to run
and give us a fixed play area. And no, no new news on the new
cards. How many times can you say "new/knew" in a sentence?
Uhhhh, after I get some sleep and compile all my notes, I'll
post some more substantial information.
Mike
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
mbohlman wrote in message ...
>
>Hi, everybody,
>>On Friday, we had a draft tournament, originally supposed to
>be Rochester. Scott Larabee, bless his soul, took our advise
>to let us run our own draft format. Among those in attendance,
>we went with a Michigan draft. About 25 players participated.
>I'm thinking Dave Tatu won, but my sleepiness is telling me
>Jared Strait might have won....and my notes are at home not
>with me here at work where I had to come fix some things.....
>Better, stop there.... Galen Cruze had a VP with a 3
>players with 0. The winner got about half a box worth of
>AH, DS, and Sabbat. The others got significant numbers as
>well.
I would be very interested in finding out how well the draft worked with 25
people and do you think that the MD can be repackaged as something the DCI
would endorse?
>
>
>Overall, thinks went very smoothly. Everyone had fun (I hope),
>and no one walked away empty handed from any event. Next year,
>WotC wants V:EKN to be more involved in planning events to run
>and give us a fixed play area. And no, no new news on the new
>cards. How many times can you say "new/knew" in a sentence?
I hope to be there next year and help out as needed. I'll keep my eye open.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 08:50:00 -0400 "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote:
> I would be very interested in finding out how well the draft
> worked with 25 people and do you think that the MD can be
> repackaged as something the DCI would endorse?
It worked just fine. We did the draft, two rounds, and a final
in about 7 hours, IIRC. What will be interesting if we adopt
a draft as the standard sealed-based format is to see how the
draft develops into bargaining and such. "We seem to be going
after the same cards. Maybe one of us should change ideas?"
sort of things.
[ quoted text not captured ]
(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS)
"mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> writes:
>Sunday morning, I awoke in a panic at about 10 thinking it was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the middle of the afternoon and leapt into the shower only to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>come out and realise it was only 9:30 a.m. When I arrived at
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Won the Malkavian Time Auction, did we? :)
Fred
In article <2EAr3.15960$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
"mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 08:50:00 -0400 "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote:
>
> > I would be very interested in finding out how well the draft
> > worked with 25 people and do you think that the MD can be
> > repackaged as something the DCI would endorse?
I wonder why a number of players would like the "Michigan *Sealed with
some trade*" to be the official alternative DCI format. :)
(No offense meant Dave, just want to make clear what type it really is!)
>
> It worked just fine. We did the draft, two rounds, and a final
> in about 7 hours, IIRC. What will be interesting if we adopt
> a draft as the standard sealed-based format is to see how the
> draft develops into bargaining and such. "We seem to be going
> after the same cards. Maybe one of us should change ideas?"
> sort of things.
I really don't like the idea of trading in order to get a somewhat
competitive deck. This really *asks* for collusion between players.
Imagine two players, one trading needed cards to another under the
condition that if they sit together on a table, the one getting the
needed cards will support him or even oust himself so that the one
offering the needed cards will get at least 1 VP. Do you really think
that's cool???? I do certainly not.
I think the MD is just a basic Sealed with some limited trading at the
end to improve the deck a bit. There is no "drafting" as such.
A real draft, where you get at least some control over the cards you
get, is strongly preferable. There it is your own skill that decides
how good your deck is, with a *little* luck strewn in admittedly. In a
tournament first depending on luck for some playable cards, then
depending on "friendly" opponents to trade you some usable cards is...
crap (for a tournament, not in any other environment).
The time factor comes into play, too. First opening boosters,
constructing deck takes time. Next you waste time choosing the cards to
trade, then the trade itself costs time. Again you need time to
reconstruct the deck. Will we skip one of the preliminary rounds to
keep up a reasonable timetable? ;)
Next: Rochester Draft and similar. ehehehehe
Time consuming, and excessive. Mike said something of 1.5 to 2 hours
for 228 cards! Let's face it: when each player takes the card/s he
needs one at a time, valuable minutes are wasted. Also, the other
players actually *see* what he goes for, and can immediatly either
build a counter deck or screw him!
The best solution is the "rotary principle", where each player looks
through a number of cards without having the other seeing what he
takes; at the same time the drafting process is sped up because each
player is doing exactly the same! One card chosen, rest to the player
on the left, taking the cards from the player to the right, choosing
again, and so on. This really works, and leads to good and playable
decks without having everybody discarding like mad in the games. :)
A time limit is really necessary, otherwise the drafting process really
gets bogged down.
One final word: I really doubt that the DCI would adopt a format where
players can trade before the rounds start. This would open "a whole can
of worms" as some of you have put it in the past. I also doubt that the
DCI would like to adopt a format that is too luck-based like the simple
Sealed. Most likely they would accept a format similar to the rochester
draft, or something new altogether (like the "rotary principle" - Elder
Draft!).
The format we propose should be
1) not too luck-dependant
2) not too time-consuming
3) able to come up with well-playable decks
4) able to prohibit collusion prior to the rounds
MD fails to do 1) 2) 3) and 4), Rochester fails in clearly in 2) and
maybe even in the other points as well (don't know right now).
The Elder Draft OTOH would be (almost) invulnerable to the above points.
I understand that almost nobody has experience with the Elder Draft,
except a few players from mid-Europe. I also understand that a version
of the Rochester was played at GenCon and made rather good progress.
And finally I understand all the players familiar with the MD
(naturally the MJL now NJL players :) ) who did invest a lot of time
and effort in inventing a good solid Sealed format.
Carl
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:21:29 GMT carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> I really don't like the idea of trading in order to get a somewhat
> competitive deck. This really *asks* for collusion between players.
> Imagine two players, one trading needed cards to another under the
> condition that if they sit together on a table, the one getting the
> needed cards will support him or even oust himself so that the one
> offering the needed cards will get at least 1 VP. Do you really
> think that's cool???? I do certainly not.
One victory point will not get you into the finals. Plus, this
could also be part of the deal making. During our informal
GenCon draft tournament on Saturday night, Robert Goudie and
Mike Courtouis made a deal that if Mike left a Parity Shift for
Robert to draft, Robert wouldn't use it on him.
> I think the MD is just a basic Sealed with some limited trading at
> the end to improve the deck a bit. There is no "drafting" as such.
I realise that now. What we ran was whatever they ran last year
at GenCon according to Jared Strait.
> Time consuming, and excessive. Mike said something of 1.5 to 2 hours
> for 228 cards! Let's face it: when each player takes the card/s he
> needs one at a time, valuable minutes are wasted.
Actually, you take 1 vampire at a time and 2 library cards at a
time. And that was way more cords than you should do, which I
stated. The actual tournament had a starter and a booster: 94
cards (or is it 93 or 95?). Most of the tables were done in
1 to 1.5 hours. A couple took longer.
> Also, the other players actually *see* what he goes for, and can
> immediatly either build a counter deck or screw him!
So? They've basically set themselves up to lose if all they
draft is an anti-deck for one of the others at the table. Second,
if you have a large group, they may never play each other as players
are reseated after the draft. Plus, once you start going for
things, you have to consider the cards that are coming up that
could hose your deck. For example on Saturday night, I was going
for permanent rush (Havens, Wynn, Roxanne, Ebaneezer) and guns
as part of my strategy. So I grabbed Illegal Search and Seizure
and Peace Treaty whenever there wasn't other stuff available that
I absolutely wanted.
> The best solution is the "rotary principle",
I really don't think there's a problem, so no solution is
necessary. :)
> A time limit is really necessary, otherwise the drafting process
> really gets bogged down.
Having a fixed limit would be bad. What could be done is handing
out warnings for taking a long time for picking cards. Another
player at the table brings it to the judge's attention, and he
can then view the draft for a couple minutes to see how it goes.
If a player is slow, he can give an unrecorded warning to speed
up and issue a tracked warning if he is called to the table again.
> The format we propose should be
> 1) not too luck-dependant
> 2) not too time-consuming
> 3) able to come up with well-playable decks
> 4) able to prohibit collusion prior to the rounds
>
> MD fails to do 1) 2) 3) and 4), Rochester fails in clearly in 2) and
> maybe even in the other points as well (don't know right now).
> The Elder Draft OTOH would be (almost) invulnerable to the above
> points.
I don't think a Rochester-based draft is really that slow.
The judge just needs to be prepared to give warnings for taking
a long time to choose.
I think the Elder Draft would be more susceptible to cheating.
People who are capable can easily take 3 cards when they should
only take 2. So if you then count their decks, you have to redo
the draft and decide whether the player did it on purpose. This
is impossible under the "GenCon" draft unless no one at the
table is paying attention in which case those players deserve to
be screwed.
I think the Elder Draft would also take longer than regular draft
because all the players don't see the cards at once. That means
each has to take time to view the cards in the booster and decide
what he wants. Player 4 can't start thinking about what he wants
until the booster gets around to him.
> I understand that almost nobody has experience with the Elder Draft,
> except a few players from mid-Europe. I also understand that a
> version of the Rochester was played at GenCon and made rather good
> progress. And finally I understand all the players familiar with
> the MD (naturally the MJL now NJL players :) ) who did invest a lot
> of time and effort in inventing a good solid Sealed format.
Like above, now that I've actually read all the stuff on MD, I
feel that it is too luck based. Fifteen cards is going to make
zero difference with a mostly sealed deck.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7op5g1$70a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> In article <2EAr3.15960$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> "mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 08:50:00 -0400 "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I would be very interested in finding out how well the draft
> > > worked with 25 people and do you think that the MD can be
> > > repackaged as something the DCI would endorse?
>
> I wonder why a number of players would like the "Michigan *Sealed with
> some trade*" to be the official alternative DCI format. :)
> (No offense meant Dave, just want to make clear what type it really is!)
>
> >
> > It worked just fine. We did the draft, two rounds, and a final
> > in about 7 hours, IIRC. What will be interesting if we adopt
> > a draft as the standard sealed-based format is to see how the
> > draft develops into bargaining and such. "We seem to be going
> > after the same cards. Maybe one of us should change ideas?"
> > sort of things.
>> I really don't like the idea of trading in order to get a somewhat
> competitive deck. This really *asks* for collusion between players.
> Imagine two players, one trading needed cards to another under the
> condition that if they sit together on a table, the one getting the
> needed cards will support him or even oust himself so that the one
> offering the needed cards will get at least 1 VP. Do you really think
> that's cool???? I do certainly not.
Wow, and i thought i was a cynical old bugger! IS this REALLY something
you worry about in Vienna?
>
> I think the MD is just a basic Sealed with some limited trading at the
> end to improve the deck a bit. There is no "drafting" as such.
Right, but that doesn't make it bad!
>
> A real draft, where you get at least some control over the cards you
> get, is strongly preferable. There it is your own skill that decides
> how good your deck is, with a *little* luck strewn in admittedly.
Well, in my opinion that is a matter of opinion. Especially the
implication that there is no skill to constructing and playing a true
sealed-deck deck.
In a
> tournament first depending on luck for some playable cards, then
> depending on "friendly" opponents to trade you some usable cards is...
> crap (for a tournament, not in any other environment).
> The time factor comes into play, too. First opening boosters,
> constructing deck takes time. Next you waste time choosing the cards to
> trade, then the trade itself costs time. Again you need time to
> reconstruct the deck. Will we skip one of the preliminary rounds to
> keep up a reasonable timetable? ;)
>
> Next: Rochester Draft and similar. ehehehehe> Time consuming, and excessive. Mike said something of 1.5 to 2 hours
> for 228 cards! Let's face it: when each player takes the card/s he> needs one at a time, valuable minutes are wasted. Also, the other> players actually *see* what he goes for, and can immediatly either
> build a counter deck or screw him!> The best solution is the "rotary principle", where each player looks
> through a number of cards without having the other seeing what he
> takes; at the same time the drafting process is sped up because each
> player is doing exactly the same! One card chosen, rest to the player
> on the left, taking the cards from the player to the right, choosing
> again, and so on. This really works, and leads to good and playable> decks without having everybody discarding like mad in the games. :)>
> A time limit is really necessary, otherwise the drafting process really
> gets bogged down.
>> One final word: I really doubt that the DCI would adopt a format where
> players can trade before the rounds start. This would open "a whole can
> of worms" as some of you have put it in the past. I also doubt that the
> DCI would like to adopt a format that is too luck-based like the simple
> Sealed. Most likely they would accept a format similar to the rochester
> draft, or something new altogether (like the "rotary principle" - Elder
> Draft!).
>> The format we propose should be
> 1) not too luck-dependant
> 2) not too time-consuming
> 3) able to come up with well-playable decks
> 4) able to prohibit collusion prior to the rounds
>
> MD fails to do 1) 2) 3) and 4), Rochester fails in clearly in 2) and
> maybe even in the other points as well (don't know right now).
> The Elder Draft OTOH would be (almost) invulnerable to the above points.
>> I understand that almost nobody has experience with the Elder Draft,
> except a few players from mid-Europe. I also understand that a version
> of the Rochester was played at GenCon and made rather good progress.
> And finally I understand all the players familiar with the MD
> (naturally the MJL now NJL players :) ) who did invest a lot of time
> and effort in inventing a good solid Sealed format.
>> Carl
>
My 2 Kreutzer's worth on this is that MD, or at least our local
Portsmouth draft version of it, works and is popular and doesn't rely
much on luck. Not having played the Elder draft format i have no
effective comment to make on it. It sounds fun. But i wonder if it would
produce quite the number of thought-provoking and amusing situations that
the M/Portsmouth D produces. The difference is, if i understand
correctly, that in Elder Draft you have some idea of the deck you want to
construct ... in M/Portsmouth D, you just HAVE to make the best use of
what you've got.
But hey, i'm not arguing here. Let's try them all - as Madam Mao so
movingly put it, Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom. Then Squash them all with
tanks, or deport them to the USA. She added the last bit sotto voce, of
course.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I just got back from Gen*Con late last night (Monday) but I'm at work
today. I'm tired but I'll try to fill in some of the gaps.
mbohlman wrote:
>
[clip]
> Thursday, Joe Churchill judged the tournament, so I'll leave
> it to him to comment on that day. Rumor has it that a deck
> constructed under 4CL that focused around intercept won?!
That was my understanding as well.
>
> On Friday, we had a draft tournament, originally supposed to
> be Rochester. Scott Larabee, bless his soul, took our advise
> to let us run our own draft format. Among those in attendance,
> we went with a Michigan draft. About 25 players participated.
> I'm thinking Dave Tatu won, but my sleepiness is telling me
> Jared Strait might have won....and my notes are at home not
> with me here at work where I had to come fix some things.....
> Better, stop there.... Galen Cruze had a VP with a 3
> players with 0. The winner got about half a box worth of
> AH, DS, and Sabbat. The others got significant numbers as
> well.
Tatu won! When we call him "The Best That Atlanta Can Offer" it is no
longer a SLAM!
> Friday night, we played some informal after consuming alcoholic
> beverages with Robert Goudie, Dave Tatu, Keith Thompson, Joe
> Churchill, Mike Courtouis, and myself in attendance. In the
> last game, I was quickly ousted at 4 a.m. and allowed to go
> get some sleep to judge on Saturday.
Frighteningly enough, that wasn't the last game. We played another soon
after. Lucky for me, I was ousted at about 6:15 a.m. I left at 6:30
a.m. with four players still playing.
> Saturday was the Championship event with Jarett Welch capturing
> the title after eeking into the final round with only 5 VP's.
> Dave Tatu was in with 9, Robert Goudie with 10, Keith Thompson
> with 6.5, and Greg Ciallella with 7 were the other finalists.
> There were 22 people to start the event with
> Jarret's deck was Presence bleed with some votes, and he will
> hopefully be e-mailing his deck to me soon for posting and for
> inclusion in the Fragment. Every player also got Championship Event
> t-shirts with some Necromancy card that I can't remember either
> on them (Compel the Spirit?) Jarett received a goblet consisting
> of a porcelain skull mounted on a pewter base valued at over
> $150 plus a king's ransom in AH, DS, and Sabbat.
All correct.
> Saturday night, Scott Larabee and Dave Whose-last-name-I-can't-
> remember were kind enough to give us the remaining sealed V:TES
> starters and boosters for an informal draft tournament later
> that night with 8 participants. When the second round was
> completed at 5 a.m. most of us left in exhaustion and split of
> the rest of the cards. Robert Goudie, Dave Tatu, Joe Churchill,
> Jesse whose-last-name-I-can't-remember-but-it-was-German, Galen
> Cruze, Keith Thompson, Mike Courtouis, and myself participated.
I was also winning the "Thrown Card Event" with a blistering shot that
ran all the way up to the roof about 50 feet away. The game was called
early on account of us getting scolded over the P.A. system.
> Sunday morning, I awoke in a panic at about 10 thinking it was> the middle of the afternoon and leapt into the shower only to> come out and realise it was only 9:30 a.m. When I arrived at> the convention, no one was to be found and after playing a
> couple demos (Mechwarrior 3 computer game, Battletech miniatures,
> Babylon 5 Space Combat Simulator) and getting a steal on some
> Star Wars RPG books, I decided it was a hopeless cause and headed
> home at 3:30 in the afternoon.
We played a game at David Tatu's and Joe Churchill's hotel and then it
was off to the dealer room. We must have just missed you.
> Overall, thinks went very smoothly. Everyone had fun (I hope),
> and no one walked away empty handed from any event. Next year,
> WotC wants V:EKN to be more involved in planning events to run
> and give us a fixed play area.
I had a wonderful time. Let me add that I enjoyed the discussions at
the bar as much as the game playing.
--
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
In article <Sfrr3.15767$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
"mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:
>
> Thursday, Joe Churchill judged the tournament, so I'll leave
> it to him to comment on that day. Rumor has it that a deck
> constructed under 4CL that focused around intercept won?!
Thursday's event went well, except for a few who weren't up-to-date on
the new rules/rulings/errata and the DCI Tourney rules. The event was
won by *Nathan Ziolek(7vp), who was playing a mixed bag of intercept
and medium bleed. Second place went to David Tatu(7vp), playing a Ven
Vote Deck. Third place to Martin Ralya(9vp), playing Classic Weenie
Dominate Misdirection deck. Forth place went to Jarett Welch(8vp),
playing a Presence vote & bleed deck. Lastly Fifth place was taken by
Jared Strait(5vp), playing a Trem/!Trem Seeds of Corruption/Cryptic
Mission/Society of Leapold deck.
I guess the coolest thing that happened in the finals was Bear Paw bled
with Aire of Elation!
*Nathan Ziolek was playing a 4cl limit deck
----------
> Saturday was the Championship event with Jarett Welch capturing
> the title after eeking into the final round with only 5 VP's.
Sadly the Tzimisce weren't quite able to make the finals, obtaining
only 4vp. I was able to oust the Jarett, the tourney winner in round 3,
with an incredible amount Eagle's Sight.
I believe my favorite question in the event was, "you can play more
than one of the same combat cards?"
"Yes! I can, and by the way, here's four more." ;-)
Look for the deck, "Hit Me And Die F#@%er," in the upcoming August
Tzimisce newsletter later this week.
Joe Churchill
http://tzimisce.home.mindspring.com/[ quoted text not captured ]
>I guess the coolest thing that happened in the finals was Bear Paw bled
>with Aire of Elation!
Now that is coooool!!!!!! We are talking style points. This deck I got to
see!
Conor
Prince of Raleigh
In article <f6Wr3.16817$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
"mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:21:29 GMT carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
>> > I really don't like the idea of trading in order to get a somewhat
> > competitive deck. This really *asks* for collusion between players.
> > Imagine two players, one trading needed cards to another under the
> > condition that if they sit together on a table, the one getting the
> > needed cards will support him or even oust himself so that the one
> > offering the needed cards will get at least 1 VP. Do you really
> > think that's cool???? I do certainly not.
>> One victory point will not get you into the finals. Plus, this
> could also be part of the deal making. During our informal
> GenCon draft tournament on Saturday night, Robert Goudie and
> Mike Courtouis made a deal that if Mike left a Parity Shift for
> Robert to draft, Robert wouldn't use it on him.
One VP alone not, but it might be the one that will bring you in total
into the final round.
There are various kinds of deals. Some will have no or small impact on
the game, others can swing the course of the whole tournament. I would
be real pissed, if my prey was ready to be ousted in my next turn, and
my grand prey (who could well be in a good position himself) would help
my prey due to a deal *before* the rounds had actually started. The
grand prey could leave open totally its defence and be bled down to 4
and then oust itself in the influence phase. Phew. Pissed. My prey has
6 additional pool.
But, we are talking about trading in the MD, I assume it is agreed that
the MD, though very funny, is not suited for DCI tournament play. :)
> > Time consuming, and excessive. Mike said something of 1.5 to 2 hours
> > for 228 cards! Let's face it: when each player takes the card/s he
> > needs one at a time, valuable minutes are wasted.
>> Actually, you take 1 vampire at a time and 2 library cards at a
> time. And that was way more cords than you should do, which I
> stated. The actual tournament had a starter and a booster: 94
> cards (or is it 93 or 95?). Most of the tables were done in
> 1 to 1.5 hours. A couple took longer.
This is *long*!! The Elder Draft takes *never* longer than 60 minutes
max. Mostly less.
(number of cards can vary strongly using Jyhad, there are library cards
on the vamp-sheet!)
>
> > Also, the other players actually *see* what he goes for, and can
> > immediatly either build a counter deck or screw him!
>> So? They've basically set themselves up to lose if all they
> draft is an anti-deck for one of the others at the table. Second,
> if you have a large group, they may never play each other as players
> are reseated after the draft. Plus, once you start going for
> things, you have to consider the cards that are coming up that
> could hose your deck. For example on Saturday night, I was going
> for permanent rush (Havens, Wynn, Roxanne, Ebaneezer) and guns
> as part of my strategy. So I grabbed Illegal Search and Seizure
> and Peace Treaty whenever there wasn't other stuff available that
> I absolutely wanted.
If you see what cards I take, it's practically scouting before the
game. The DCI floor rules forebid that. This should be enforced.
>
> > The best solution is the "rotary principle",
>> I really don't think there's a problem, so no solution is
> necessary. :)
Hm, yes there is the time problem and the scouting problem, as well as
the randomness problem.
>
> > A time limit is really necessary, otherwise the drafting process
> > really gets bogged down.
>> Having a fixed limit would be bad. What could be done is handing
> out warnings for taking a long time for picking cards. Another
> player at the table brings it to the judge's attention, and he
> can then view the draft for a couple minutes to see how it goes.
> If a player is slow, he can give an unrecorded warning to speed
> up and issue a tracked warning if he is called to the table again.
Why would it be bad for VTES, whereas in MtG there is one, and it's
working? *Some* things can and should be translated from MtG to VTES.
>
> > The format we propose should be
> > 1) not too luck-dependant
> > 2) not too time-consuming
> > 3) able to come up with well-playable decks
> > 4) able to prohibit collusion prior to the rounds
> >
> > MD fails to do 1) 2) 3) and 4), Rochester fails in clearly in 2) and
> > maybe even in the other points as well (don't know right now).
> > The Elder Draft OTOH would be (almost) invulnerable to the above
> > points.
>> I don't think a Rochester-based draft is really that slow.
> The judge just needs to be prepared to give warnings for taking
> a long time to choose.
It's at least 4 times slower than Elder Draft (hey, I really like that
name... :) ), probably even more, but see below.
>
> I think the Elder Draft would be more susceptible to cheating.
> People who are capable can easily take 3 cards when they should
> only take 2. So if you then count their decks, you have to redo
> the draft and decide whether the player did it on purpose. This
> is impossible under the "GenCon" draft unless no one at the
> table is paying attention in which case those players deserve to
> be screwed.
No, it is not susceptible to cheating. You don't seem to understand it
fully. *Each* player on the table takes one pile in hand (e.g. 30 cards
each!). Next the players look through the cards simultanously, and pick
one (1) card each. After all have picked, players hand their pile
*simultanously* to the player on their left (or right or whatever), and
the process is repeated until all cards have been selected. You will
notice, that in the end all players will have no cards left to pick
from - if one or more players still has cards, something has gone
wrong. Agreed, that might happen, but players will count their cards
and the black sheep will be identified. Now he/she gives one or more
(if appropriate) cards to the player/s with fewer cards randomly
selected from his cards. This really suffices, as we have seen during
various tests with the Elder Draft. There is no need to redo the draft
completely. Don't forget that players are only permitted to pick one
(1) card in turn.
>
> I think the Elder Draft would also take longer than regular draft
> because all the players don't see the cards at once. That means
> each has to take time to view the cards in the booster and decide
> what he wants. Player 4 can't start thinking about what he wants
> until the booster gets around to him.
And here you are wrong, as stated above. All players are looking
through the cardpiles *at the same time*. Additionally there should be
a timelimit (e.g. 30 sec.).
There is no need in the Elder Draft to put cards on the table, so
valuable time can be saved, too!
You see 30 cards at once (during the first rotation) from which you can
choose. In the Rochester you see 10 cards max, and you probably have to
choose from 6 cards left when it's your turn. :(
Additionally you have the advantage of the other players not seeing
what cards you are actually drafting, similar to a simple Sealed.
> > I understand that almost nobody has experience with the Elder Draft,
> > except a few players from mid-Europe. I also understand that a
> > version of the Rochester was played at GenCon and made rather good
> > progress. And finally I understand all the players familiar with
> > the MD (naturally the MJL now NJL players :) ) who did invest a lot
> > of time and effort in inventing a good solid Sealed format.
>> Like above, now that I've actually read all the stuff on MD, I
> feel that it is too luck based. Fifteen cards is going to make
> zero difference with a mostly sealed deck.
Good Mike, I think we can agreee that MD has been ruled out as an
option for an alternative DCI format. (Not that I think the MD is bad!)
Carl
PS: Mike, I really enjoy discussions with you. It's so ... difficult.
:)
[ quoted text not captured ]
> >
> > I really don't like the idea of trading in order to get a somewhat
> > competitive deck. This really *asks* for collusion between players.
> > Imagine two players, one trading needed cards to another under the
> > condition that if they sit together on a table, the one getting the
> > needed cards will support him or even oust himself so that the one
> > offering the needed cards will get at least 1 VP. Do you really
think
> > that's cool???? I do certainly not.
>
> Wow, and i thought i was a cynical old bugger! IS this REALLY
something
> you worry about in Vienna?
I don't know, but I guess collusion is worried about in a number of
places. Sadly, we are very sensitive about this kind of thing, as 2
players collaborating *before* a game screwed the final of our league
(which is going for a full year) thereby angering a lot of players and
substantially decreasing the number of players available from approx.
100 to 50 and less. :(
Yes, I think it's a problem. It might not be a problem for most of you,
but I can predict that it would be exploited and used for unfair
advantages. And that's not in the spirit of a tournament.
I would rather leave this can of worms unopened, than fixing it later.
Honestly.
> >
> > I think the MD is just a basic Sealed with some limited trading at
the
> > end to improve the deck a bit. There is no "drafting" as such.
>
> Right, but that doesn't make it bad!
> >
> > A real draft, where you get at least some control over the cards you
> > get, is strongly preferable. There it is your own skill that decides
> > how good your deck is, with a *little* luck strewn in admittedly.
>
> Well, in my opinion that is a matter of opinion. Especially the
> implication that there is no skill to constructing and playing a true
> sealed-deck deck.
There is certainly skill involved in building a Sealed deck. It's just
you depend too much on luck. I've seen tournaments decided by sheer
luck that way. It's not good. Remember, we are looking for a
competitive alternative for a VTES DCI format.
> > (snipped)> My 2 Kreutzer's worth on this is that MD, or at least our local
> Portsmouth draft version of it, works and is popular and doesn't rely
> much on luck. Not having played the Elder draft format i have no
> effective comment to make on it. It sounds fun. But i wonder if it
would
> produce quite the number of thought-provoking and amusing situations
that
> the M/Portsmouth D produces.
You are partially right. It's not as random as Sealed, so strange
situations and normally under underused cards are not as often seen as
in a Sealed, but it happens nonetheless! And it's still thought
provoking, much more than a classic constructed. :)
> The difference is, if i understand
> correctly, that in Elder Draft you have some idea of the deck you
want to
> construct ... in M/Portsmouth D, you just HAVE to make the best use of
> what you've got.
You get the idea as soon as you start drafting the vamps. Your deck
evolves during the drafting of the library cards. Yes, you have some
limited control over the cards you get to use.
>
> But hey, i'm not arguing here. Let's try them all - as Madam Mao so
> movingly put it, Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom. Then Squash them all
with
> tanks, or deport them to the USA. She added the last bit sotto voce,
of
> course.
Hm, yes, Sir! :)
Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
carl.pi...@philips.com writes:
>
> In article <f6Wr3.16817$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> "mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:21:29 GMT carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:> > [snip]> > > Also, the other players actually *see* what he goes for, and can
> > > immediatly either build a counter deck or screw him!
> >
> > So? They've basically set themselves up to lose if all they
> > draft is an anti-deck for one of the others at the table. Second,
> > if you have a large group, they may never play each other as players
> > are reseated after the draft. Plus, once you start going for
> > things, you have to consider the cards that are coming up that
> > could hose your deck. For example on Saturday night, I was going
> > for permanent rush (Havens, Wynn, Roxanne, Ebaneezer) and guns
> > as part of my strategy. So I grabbed Illegal Search and Seizure
> > and Peace Treaty whenever there wasn't other stuff available that
> > I absolutely wanted.
>
> If you see what cards I take, it's practically scouting before the
> game. The DCI floor rules forebid that. This should be enforced.
>> [snip]
>
> [Elder Draft:]> No, it is not susceptible to cheating. You don't seem to understand it
> fully. *Each* player on the table takes one pile in hand (e.g. 30 cards
> each!). Next the players look through the cards simultanously, and pick
> one (1) card each. After all have picked, players hand their pile
> *simultanously* to the player on their left (or right or whatever), and
> the process is repeated until all cards have been selected. You will
> notice, that in the end all players will have no cards left to pick
> from - if one or more players still has cards, something has gone
> wrong. Agreed, that might happen, but players will count their cards
> and the black sheep will be identified. Now he/she gives one or more
> (if appropriate) cards to the player/s with fewer cards randomly
> selected from his cards. This really suffices, as we have seen during
> various tests with the Elder Draft. There is no need to redo the draft
> completely. Don't forget that players are only permitted to pick one
> (1) card in turn.
So when one player has two cards and chooses one (and passes the
remaining card to her left), that should be considered "practically"
scouting? (I hope not.)
All draft formats (and trade formats like the Michigan Draft, for that
matter) involve this sort of what you call scouting. It should not be
considered scouting, since it is just a part of the deck-building rules.
BTW, as to cheating in Elder Draft, unless there are 20+ players at a
"table", one could easily take 2 cards from the first set of cards and
then take zero cards from that set when it makes its way back around to
you to even things out. Meaning you get the "best" two cards from that
set. All "limited" events are susceptible to cheating to a higher degree
that the "unlimited" events. That's just something that the players (and
judges) have to accept and be prepared for.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | No use being pessimistic.
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | It wouldn't work, anyway.
Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger |
In article <7orr53$3...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
> carl.pi...@philips.com writes:
[snip]
> > If you see what cards I take, it's practically scouting before the
> > game. The DCI floor rules forebid that. This should be enforced.
> >> > [snip]
> >
> > [Elder Draft:]> > No, it is not susceptible to cheating. You don't seem to understand
it
> > fully. *Each* player on the table takes one pile in hand (e.g. 30
cards
> > each!). Next the players look through the cards simultanously, and
pick
> > one (1) card each. After all have picked, players hand their pile
> > *simultanously* to the player on their left (or right or whatever),
and
> > the process is repeated until all cards have been selected. You will
> > notice, that in the end all players will have no cards left to pick
> > from - if one or more players still has cards, something has gone
> > wrong. Agreed, that might happen, but players will count their cards
> > and the black sheep will be identified. Now he/she gives one or more
> > (if appropriate) cards to the player/s with fewer cards randomly
> > selected from his cards. This really suffices, as we have seen
during
> > various tests with the Elder Draft. There is no need to redo the
draft
> > completely. Don't forget that players are only permitted to pick one
> > (1) card in turn.
>> So when one player has two cards and chooses one (and passes the
> remaining card to her left), that should be considered "practically"
> scouting? (I hope not.)
Hm, you have a point here. *grin* (got me) :)
As an afterthought, yes there would be a bit "scouting", I guess in a
Non-Sealed, Non-Constructed (i.e Draft or similar) there is always a
chance that players know some cards of the opponents.
But, with Elder Draft you give the players much less chance than with
Rochester.
>
> All draft formats (and trade formats like the Michigan Draft, for
that
> matter) involve this sort of what you call scouting. It should not be
> considered scouting, since it is just a part of the deck-building
rules.
Finally, agreed. But it can be more or less "scouting".
>
> BTW, as to cheating in Elder Draft, unless there are 20+ players at a
> "table", one could easily take 2 cards from the first set of cards and
> then take zero cards from that set when it makes its way back around
to
> you to even things out. Meaning you get the "best" two cards from that
> set. All "limited" events are susceptible to cheating to a higher
degree
> that the "unlimited" events. That's just something that the players
(and
> judges) have to accept and be prepared for.
I know what you mean. This is where players have to be aware of what
*could* happen. IMO, this doesn't disqualify the Elder Draft as a
candidate for the sanctioned format. :)
I supose it would happen sometimes. But that's what judges are for. ;)
(I know that judges can't see everything.)
In general I feel that the Elder Draft is a very good compromise
between speed, administrability and skill.
Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 07:38:55 GMT carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> In article <f6Wr3.16817$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> "mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:> One VP alone not, but it might be the one that will bring you in
> total into the final round. There are various kinds of deals.
> Some will have no or small impact on the game, others can swing
> the course of the whole tournament. I would be real pissed, if
> my prey was ready to be ousted in my next turn, and my grand
> prey (who could well be in a good position himself) would help
> my prey due to a deal *before* the rounds had actually started.
> The grand prey could leave open totally its defence and be bled
> down to 4 and then oust itself in the influence phase. Phew.
> Pissed. My prey has 6 additional pool.
There's a difference between deal making and collusion. When
a person puts himself out from a defensable position, obviously
something is going on. And this isn't something that can only
happen in a draft type tournament.
> This is *long*!! The Elder Draft takes *never* longer than 60
> minutes max. Mostly less. (number of cards can vary strongly using
> Jyhad, there are library cards on the vamp-sheet!)
Sixty minutes means things are going pretty fast. Each player
is picking about 95 cards which means they are taking the booster,
spreading the cards, examining the cards, picking a card, then
passing the cards in under 45 seconds on average.
> If you see what cards I take, it's practically scouting before the
> game. The DCI floor rules forebid that. This should be enforced.
And when you are playing a game against someone in the tournament,
that may as well be scouting, too, the way you are looking at it.
> Why would it be bad for VTES, whereas in MtG there is one, and
> it's working? *Some* things can and should be translated from MtG
> to VTES.
I think a fixed limit would be bad because of possible deal making
that couldn't take place. Jyhad is a game that goes way beyond
the cards on the table. How much do chess timers cost? Maybe we
could use something like that.
> It's at least 4 times slower than Elder Draft (hey, I really like
> that name... :) ), probably even more, but see below.
4 times slower would mean that if it takes 2 hours to do the
GenCon draft, it takes 30 minutes to do the Elder Draft. That
means about 20 seconds to take, examine, choose, and pass the
cards. I don't see that happening at every table with every
player.
> No, it is not susceptible to cheating. You don't seem to
> understand it fully. *Each* player on the table takes one pile
> in hand (e.g. 30 cards each!). Next the players look through the
> cards simultanously, and pick one (1) card each. After all have
> picked, players hand their pile *simultanously* to the player on
> their left (or right or whatever), and the process is repeated
> until all cards have been selected. You will notice, that in the
> end all players will have no cards left to pick from - if one or
> more players still has cards, something has gone wrong. Agreed,
> that might happen, but players will count their cards and the black
> sheep will be identified. Now he/she gives one or more (if
> appropriate) cards to the player/s with fewer cards randomly
> selected from his cards. This really suffices, as we have seen
> during various tests with the Elder Draft. There is no need to redo
> the draft completely. Don't forget that players are only permitted
> to pick one (1) card in turn.
You aren't thinking evilly enough. So you pick one card a turn.
You keep the cards you've chosen in one hand and the booster
you're drafting from in the other. Instead of one card, you slip
4 into your hand. Anyone that can do card magic at all is going
to be able to take extra cards. And they'll be equally able to
dispose of the extras before anyone knows any better and can count
what he has. It's amazing what card magicians can do, and it
doesn't take a ton of practice. You should have seen Robert
and Mike Courtois winging those cards more than 50 feet. Not
that that would help a person palm cards, but it could still be
done. :)
> And here you are wrong, as stated above. All players are looking
> through the cardpiles *at the same time*. Additionally there should
> be a timelimit (e.g. 30 sec.). There is no need in the Elder Draft
> to put cards on the table, so valuable time can be saved, too!
Uhhh, no. Let's say you have a 30 second time limit in each one
for people to choose cards. That means it would take the a four
player table 30 seconds * 4 simultaneous selections to draft 16
total cards 2 minutes. You then can figure 10 seconds to pass
the cards to the next player. That's 2 minutes and 30 seconds
total for 16 cards.
If you do the GenCon draft, you have 30 seconds * 7 or 3 minutes
and 30 seconds plus about 10 seconds setup to draft 16 cards.
With two players laying out 8 cards each, the setup takes almost
no time. So you have 3 minutes 40 seconds for each player to
get 4 cards, and they can see whether someone else is drafting
the same kind of deck.
> You see 30 cards at once (during the first rotation) from which
> you can choose. In the Rochester you see 10 cards max, and you
For vampires, you see 2 * the number of players, and for library
cards, you see 4 * the number of players.
> probably have to choose from 6 cards left when it's your turn. :(
How is this any different from Elder Draft? Did you not say that
you view the whole booster pack and then pick one? That means
you eventually get down to only 1 card in the pack.
> Additionally you have the advantage of the other players not seeing
> what cards you are actually drafting, similar to a simple Sealed.
I consider it an advantage. If I see that someone else is drafting
the same kinds of cards I want, I can either change my deck idea
or make a deal with that player. Under the Elder Draft, I might
be able to get the vampires I need, but split all the library cards
I want with another person without ever knowing it. And now I've
got vampires and library cards that don't match well.
No draft is going to be perfect. Of the true drafts I've seen,
Elder Draft and GenCon Draft are the best. I like GenCon better
because I was able to see that I was going to get what I wanted.
I competed for some Fortitude cards, but otherwise, I was able
to get almost every card I wanted....except when Mike Courtois
would act like he had chosen his cards when he needed to pick
two more and I would go too soon. He'd then take my cards. :P
> PS: Mike, I really enjoy discussions with you. It's so ...
> difficult. :)
I'm actually wishing I had taking a comparative philosophy class
at the Uni as I think I might have been rather good at it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
mbohlman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:21:29 GMT carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
>> One victory point will not get you into the finals. Plus, this
> could also be part of the deal making. During our informal
> GenCon draft tournament on Saturday night, Robert Goudie and
> Mike Courtouis made a deal that if Mike left a Parity Shift for
> Robert to draft, Robert wouldn't use it on him.
Well sorta. Mike was gonna take the Parity Shift and offered to leave
it if I promised not to use it on him. I agreed. Fortunately, I had
drafted another Parity Shift and did use it on him. I hope I didn't
make a mistake and use the wrong one one him... [snicker snicker].
He tried to deal with me on the next card too. I believe I told him to
"Go to Hell!" or something along those lines.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <fdgs3.601$pO3....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
"mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 07:38:55 GMT carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:> > In article <f6Wr3.16817$J5.184466@c01read02-
admin.service.talkway.com>,
> > "mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:
[snip]
> There's a difference between deal making and collusion. When
> a person puts himself out from a defensable position, obviously
> something is going on. And this isn't something that can only
> happen in a draft type tournament.
Yes, it could happen in any draft type, even in a constructed format.
I agree that deal making *during* the course of a game is part of the
game itself. But prior to the game? And during deck construction? This
will prove too tempting for "evil" players (as you put it below).
>
> > This is *long*!! The Elder Draft takes *never* longer than 60
> > minutes max. Mostly less. (number of cards can vary strongly using
> > Jyhad, there are library cards on the vamp-sheet!)
>
> Sixty minutes means things are going pretty fast. Each player
> is picking about 95 cards which means they are taking the booster,
> spreading the cards, examining the cards, picking a card, then
> passing the cards in under 45 seconds on average.
Actually, we have experience with a 30 seconds timelimit and it really
works fine! And we didn't draft a whole booster. No, rather each
players opened all his boosters, put together all vamps and all library
cards, divided the library cards into equal heaps, and then began
drafting first the vamps, then all the library piles (one after
another).
And once you are halfway through the pile (e.g. 15 cards left) you can
drop the timelimit down to 15 sec. with the last 5 cards even down to 5
sec. It is easily administrable with a simple watch that has a
countdown function. :)
>
> > If you see what cards I take, it's practically scouting before the
> > game. The DCI floor rules forebid that. This should be enforced.
>
> And when you are playing a game against someone in the tournament,
> that may as well be scouting, too, the way you are looking at it.
I'm talking about scouting *prior* to the rounds! I understand though,
that there will always be a bit of "scouting" with any draft format.
But picking cards openly is a bit too much. I don't know do players
like their opponents seeing what they are going to build prior to the
games?
>
> > Why would it be bad for VTES, whereas in MtG there is one, and
> > it's working? *Some* things can and should be translated from MtG
> > to VTES.
>
> I think a fixed limit would be bad because of possible deal making
> that couldn't take place. Jyhad is a game that goes way beyond
> the cards on the table. How much do chess timers cost? Maybe we
> could use something like that.
Deal making is good *during* the game. That's part of it. Construction
of a deck should not be affected by dealing/trading-abilities.
>
> > It's at least 4 times slower than Elder Draft (hey, I really like
> > that name... :) ), probably even more, but see below.
>
> 4 times slower would mean that if it takes 2 hours to do the
> GenCon draft, it takes 30 minutes to do the Elder Draft. That
> means about 20 seconds to take, examine, choose, and pass the
> cards. I don't see that happening at every table with every
> player.
20 seconds average is a good estimation. :)
>
[snipped]
>
> You aren't thinking evilly enough. So you pick one card a turn.
> You keep the cards you've chosen in one hand and the booster
> you're drafting from in the other. Instead of one card, you slip
> 4 into your hand. Anyone that can do card magic at all is going
> to be able to take extra cards. And they'll be equally able to
> dispose of the extras before anyone knows any better and can count
> what he has. It's amazing what card magicians can do, and it
> doesn't take a ton of practice. You should have seen Robert
> and Mike Courtois winging those cards more than 50 feet. Not
> that that would help a person palm cards, but it could still be
> done. :)
Come on Mike, that could be done even in a constructed game, during the
game. If someone *really* wants to cheat (and can pull off the trick,
so nobody notices) you can't do a damn thing about it. IMO that's a
pointless argument and leads nowhere.
>
[snipped]
>
> Uhhh, no. Let's say you have a 30 second time limit in each one
> for people to choose cards. That means it would take the a four
> player table 30 seconds * 4 simultaneous selections to draft 16
> total cards 2 minutes. You then can figure 10 seconds to pass
> the cards to the next player. That's 2 minutes and 30 seconds
> total for 16 cards.
The passing of the cards is incorporated in the time limit. It works. I
can assure you that.
Drafting 16 cards under Elder Draft takes 2 minutes. Every player then
has 4 cards.
Drafting 16 cards under GenCon Draft takes 3 minutes 30 seconds. Every
player then has 4 cards.
Elder 14 minutes: player has 28 cards
GenCon 14 minutes: player has 16 cards
(and that's without placing them on the table!)
>
> If you do the GenCon draft, you have 30 seconds * 7 or 3 minutes
> and 30 seconds plus about 10 seconds setup to draft 16 cards.
> With two players laying out 8 cards each, the setup takes almost
> no time. So you have 3 minutes 40 seconds for each player to
> get 4 cards, and they can see whether someone else is drafting
> the same kind of deck.
>
> > You see 30 cards at once (during the first rotation) from which
> > you can choose. In the Rochester you see 10 cards max, and you
>
> For vampires, you see 2 * the number of players, and for library
> cards, you see 4 * the number of players.
Doesn't make any difference for the speed factor.
>
> > probably have to choose from 6 cards left when it's your turn. :(
>
> How is this any different from Elder Draft? Did you not say that
> you view the whole booster pack and then pick one? That means
> you eventually get down to only 1 card in the pack.
Assume 1st turn. Elder draft: Each player chooses from 30 cards,
GenCon: 1st player chooses from 16, 3rd player from 12 cards.
With Elder Draft each player gets to choose from the same amount of
cards. Naturally they get fewer with every pick, but for each player at
the same time. Not so with GenCon Draft. The first player will always
have the best choice.
>
> > Additionally you have the advantage of the other players not seeing
> > what cards you are actually drafting, similar to a simple Sealed.
>
> I consider it an advantage. If I see that someone else is drafting
> the same kinds of cards I want, I can either change my deck idea
> or make a deal with that player. Under the Elder Draft, I might
> be able to get the vampires I need, but split all the library cards
> I want with another person without ever knowing it. And now I've
> got vampires and library cards that don't match well.
It will happen as likely as with GenCon draft. I can assure you once
you have the vamps, the library cards are not very contested. The vamps
define the way of your deck, so you are already very specialised when
drafting the library.
In the recent Elder draft I took part, there was no problem with
contested library cards. I noticed that Dominate cards got very scarce.
I simply switched to Presence. Also, you *know* that there might be a
run for certain cards (Dom bleed modifiers, e.g. as 3 clans use them in
the basic set), so it has to be part of your deck building strategy to
take that into account. And it works. Period.
>
> No draft is going to be perfect. Of the true drafts I've seen,
> Elder Draft and GenCon Draft are the best. I like GenCon better
> because I was able to see that I was going to get what I wanted.
> I competed for some Fortitude cards, but otherwise, I was able
> to get almost every card I wanted....except when Mike Courtois
> would act like he had chosen his cards when he needed to pick
> two more and I would go too soon. He'd then take my cards. :P
You are right, a draft is not really comparable to a constructed. There
will always be flaws in deck constructing. However, we have to accept
that and settle for a format. From what I gather, there are only two
formats left (unless someone else brings up another viable option):
Elder Draft and GenCon Draft. I assume we won't reach a decision
easily. We could suggest them both to the DCI and let them decide. OR
we could let the VEKN Princes decide. Or we could talk it out (however
long this takes) and reach a decision within the community.
However, it seems that response to the format-issue is rather scarce...
Carl
(VEKN Prince of Vienna & membership director)
[ quoted text not captured ]
carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> "mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:> > carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> > > If you see what cards I take, it's practically scouting before the
> > > game. The DCI floor rules forebid that. This should be enforced.
> >
> > And when you are playing a game against someone in the tournament,
> > that may as well be scouting, too, the way you are looking at it.
>
> I'm talking about scouting *prior* to the rounds! I understand though,
> that there will always be a bit of "scouting" with any draft format.
> But picking cards openly is a bit too much. I don't know do players
> like their opponents seeing what they are going to build prior to the
> games?
When WotC ran this type of draft at G*C '96, the players liked it just
fine (I suspect that the opportunity to see what others are drafting
balances out the fact that others have the same opportunity).
--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:24:01 GMT carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> But picking cards openly is a bit too much. I don't know do players
> like their opponents seeing what they are going to build prior to
> the games?
I think most people like for that fact that you can tell if you
and another person are fighting for the same cards. Second,
unless you are _VERY_ good at card counting, you are going to have
no idea what actually goes into the deck and what everyone at
your table went for. You might have an idea as to overall
strategy, but that's something you can get from the first few
turns of a game.
> Deal making is good *during* the game. That's part of it.
> Construction of a deck should not be affected by
> dealing/trading-abilities.
I like any additional social aspect we can add to the game.
I'd like to think that's one of the draws of V:TES over other
CCG's.
[ card palming ]
> Come on Mike, that could be done even in a constructed game,
> during the game. If someone *really* wants to cheat (and can
> pull off the trick, so nobody notices) you can't do a damn thing
> about it. IMO that's a pointless argument and leads nowhere.
So what you're saying then is that the cheating issue is
unimportant or at least equally as important as in any format?
> The passing of the cards is incorporated in the time limit. It
> works. I can assure you that. Drafting 16 cards under Elder Draft
> takes 2 minutes. Every player then has 4 cards. Drafting 16 cards
> under GenCon Draft takes 3 minutes 30 seconds. Every player then
> has 4 cards.
Actually, I miscalculated. The last player doesn't have a choice.
He just takes the cards left. so it actually takes 3 minutes
to choose cards.
Elder 24 minutes: player has 48 cards
GenCon 24 minutes: player has 32 cards
> (and that's without placing them on the table!)
You said that you have to separate the vampires and library cards
into piles of 15 or whatever. Most likely, once you make a pile,
you'll want to recount it because you can't just view it to know
you have 15. That means your time is at least double that of
GenCon because you can just look and see that there are 16 cards
(or 8 for vampires) once you have them out. And you also don't
have to recount them. And you can also have more than one person
putting down cards.
It's looking like the time issue is a non-issue.
> Assume 1st turn. Elder draft: Each player chooses from 30 cards,
> GenCon: 1st player chooses from 16, 3rd player from 12 cards.
> With Elder Draft each player gets to choose from the same amount
> of cards. Naturally they get fewer with every pick, but for each
> player at the same time. Not so with GenCon Draft. The first
> player will always have the best choice.
The first player who's ever turn it is has best choice, but often
not the easiest choice. The person choosing first rotates around
the table so everyone gets opportunities to choose first. The
number of times that a player chooses first is just as many as the
Elder Draft.
> From what I gather, there are only two formats left (unless someone
> else brings up another viable option): Elder Draft and GenCon Draft.
> I assume we won't reach a decision easily. We could suggest them
> both to the DCI and let them decide.
That would be like asking a blind person to choose a color scheme
for your home.
> OR we could let the VEKN Princes decide. Or we could talk it out
> (however long this takes) and reach a decision within the
> community. However, it seems that response to the format-issue
> is rather scarce...
Issues with draft:
Time - It now appears that the two are almost identical when it
comes to time. A possibility would be to set the standard limit
to draft to 30 seconds. Then as 1.5 hours approaches, the time
to draft drops to 15 or less.
Cheating - All formats are susceptible to cheating.
I personally prefer the GenCon draft because the setup time to
start drafting is less so players don't have to sit around.
Plus, it adds another social aspect to the game which I like.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <KsAs3.1205$pO3....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
"mbohlman" <mboh...@vekn.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:24:01 GMT carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
> I think most people like for that fact that you can tell if you
> and another person are fighting for the same cards. Second,
> unless you are _VERY_ good at card counting, you are going to have
> no idea what actually goes into the deck and what everyone at
> your table went for. You might have an idea as to overall
> strategy, but that's something you can get from the first few
> turns of a game.
IMO, any format should test a player's skill at deckbuilding and
playing abilities, and not his abilities of deal-making and trading.
Of course, deal-making *during* the game is an essential part of it;
but I think deckbuilding should go without it, so every player has the
same basis to start the rounds with.
>
> > Deal making is good *during* the game. That's part of it.
> > Construction of a deck should not be affected by
> > dealing/trading-abilities.
>> I like any additional social aspect we can add to the game.
> I'd like to think that's one of the draws of V:TES over other
> CCG's.
See above.
>
> [ card palming ]> > Come on Mike, that could be done even in a constructed game,
> > during the game. If someone *really* wants to cheat (and can
> > pull off the trick, so nobody notices) you can't do a damn thing
> > about it. IMO that's a pointless argument and leads nowhere.
>> So what you're saying then is that the cheating issue is
> unimportant or at least equally as important as in any format?
The cheating issue is equally important in both formats. How could it
be different? Cheating should be prohibited, no matter what format.
Period. That's what judges are for. If a player is so good at cheating,
that nobody notices, then there isn't a damn thing you could do about
it. And that's the same for draft and the rounds.
>
[snipped]
> Actually, I miscalculated. The last player doesn't have a choice.
> He just takes the cards left. so it actually takes 3 minutes
> to choose cards.
Actually, I didn't take into account, that the time-limit decreases in
the Elder Draft the less cards are left. 30-16 cards: 30 sec, 15-6
cards: 15 sec., 5-2 cards: 5 sec., 1 card: finished.
This results in drafting 30 cards in 10 minutes 20 seconds.
Lets assume we allow then 1 minute to look through the cards before
going for the next pile.
>
> Elder 24 minutes: player has 48 cards
> GenCon 24 minutes: player has 32 cards
So it's actually: Elder 22 minutes 40 seconds: player has 60!! cards.
And don't anybody even try to say a decreasing time-limit is not
administrable; it is, we did it more than once and it really works
fine. You only need either a kitchen countdown clock, or a watch with a
countdown. The head judge can easily handle that.
> You said that you have to separate the vampires and library cards
> into piles of 15 or whatever. Most likely, once you make a pile,
> you'll want to recount it because you can't just view it to know
> you have 15. That means your time is at least double that of
> GenCon because you can just look and see that there are 16 cards
> (or 8 for vampires) once you have them out. And you also don't
> have to recount them. And you can also have more than one person
> putting down cards.
You are wrong here: with Elder Draft the cards are seperated and
counted into piles of 30 cards prior to the draft process. Vampires are
drafted first in one pile (usually there will be fewer then 30).
As stated above, there is a 1-minute pause to look through the cards
and check that everyone at the table has the same number of cards. The
pre-drafting process takes one or two minutes: opening the
boosters/starters, separating all the vamps into one pile, putting all
the library cards into one pile, shuffling both vamps and library
cards, dividing the library cards into piles of 30 cards each, putting
all the piles in fron of the players. It's really easy. Once this is
done, there is NO DELAY during the draft.
>
> It's looking like the time issue is a non-issue.
Yes, if you don't want to acknowledge the higher speed of the Elder
Draft. I'd say Elder Draft is at least 2 times faster than GenCon
Draft, and when you assume 1.5 hours and more for GenCon draft, this is
NOT dismissable.
[snipped]
> The first player who's ever turn it is has best choice, but often
> not the easiest choice. The person choosing first rotates around
> the table so everyone gets opportunities to choose first. The
> number of times that a player chooses first is just as many as the
> Elder Draft.
If you do it that way, I concur.
>
> > From what I gather, there are only two formats left (unless someone
> > else brings up another viable option): Elder Draft and GenCon
Draft.
> > I assume we won't reach a decision easily. We could suggest them
> > both to the DCI and let them decide.
>> That would be like asking a blind person to choose a color scheme
> for your home.
Hehe, *I* didn't want to say that... :)
[snipped]
> Issues with draft:
>
> Time - It now appears that the two are almost identical when it
> comes to time. A possibility would be to set the standard limit
> to draft to 30 seconds. Then as 1.5 hours approaches, the time
> to draft drops to 15 or less.
As shown above the two differ by a factor 2 or slightly more. I'm
shocked by your statement: "as 1.5 hours approaches...", it implies
that the GenCon Draft goes well beyond 1.5 hours. Horrible.
The Draft should be over in 60 minutes or less! Otherwise the whole
tournament will last too long: players will get tired, the location
might get closed (you have to take into account that some locations
have to close eventually), or players will have to leave early if the
evening is late. Elder Draft at least shortens the drafting process.
> Cheating - All formats are susceptible to cheating.
Right, but it's the job of the judges to act agains cheating. The
format itself has no bearing on that.
>
> I personally prefer the GenCon draft because the setup time to
> start drafting is less so players don't have to sit around.
> Plus, it adds another social aspect to the game which I like.
???? I will grant you the another social aspect issue (whether or not
this is good for deckbuilding is debatable), but the time issue clearly
favors Elder Draft.
The setup time to start drafting Elder Draft is 2 minutes max.
I favor Elder Draft, because it's considerably faster, the deckbuilding
isn't touched by deal-making, and players don't get to see their
opponents strategies prior to the rounds.
Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
Distribution:
Greetings,
I have been watching the Draft format debate with interest; I
would like to see the DCI sanction both a draft and sealed deck
format.
I feel that I can add to the discussion of differences between
elder (rotary) draft and GenCon (Rochester) draft because I have
played both formats. A league here in Denver ran two draft
tournaments last year, and prior to the tournaments we tested
different draft formats.
I won’t go into great detail about the different draft
mechanics we tested, but I should mention that we used either 6
Jyhad boosters (114 cards?) or 4 Sabbat boosters (112 cards?).
Drafters build decks with at least 60 cards and 12 vamps; this
allows for a fairly focused deck if you draft well. Other things we
apparently did differently involved the drafting of vampires; we
would do a number of rounds (say 4) of library card drafts, then 1
round of vampire drafts and repeat. We also would switch draft
directions every so often so that you weren’t always drafting behind
the same person.
The major disagreements about the two draft formats appear
to be: 1) length of time for the draft, and 2) desirability of knowing
what your opponents are drafting.
1) Length of time for the draft. When drafting, we never used
time limits, because we were just testing formats. During our
testing elder draft would take approximately 45 minutes, while
GenCon draft would take approximately 60 minutes. Drafting and
deck building were generally accomplished in about 75 minutes for
both formats. Elder draft is definitely faster, however, not TWICE
as fast as GenCon draft. GenCon draft is more complicated to run,
and there is a steeper learning curve for new drafters, which
contributed some time to the length of our GenCon drafts.
2) Desirability of knowing what your opponents are drafting.
Obviously you have greater knowledge of what some of your
opponents are going to be using in GenCon draft. Whether this is
desirable or not is a matter of opinion. It is not “scouting” because
it is part of the deck building format; remember that GenCon draft is
derived from the DCI sanctioned Rochester Draft for Magic:tG.
As previously stated, GenCon draft increases the social aspect
of the game, I consider this A Good Thing. From our experiences,
counter-drafting (drafting cards that your opponent can use) occurs
in both formats, but can be used to better effect in GenCon draft; in
GenCon draft, I can target other drafters I know to be doing well,
rather than just “shooting in the dark”. Also, GenCon draft differs
more from constructed deck format than does elder draft; this is
nice if you are looking for a change of pace from constructed deck.
I personally enjoy GenCon draft much more than elder draft,
the interaction and excitement of the open draft process contributes
greatly to the overall tournament. I think that the increased
interaction of the GenCon draft more than offsets the increase in
draft time.
I’ve never seen anyone say that there is only going to be one
additional format, however.
-K Fehlberg Revolting Anarch of Denver
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.
-Wisdom of the Illuminati
K Fehlberg wrote in message <7p23c8$7k3$1...@news.cudenver.edu>...
>Distribution:
>Greetings,
>
> I have been watching the Draft format debate with interest; I
>would like to see the DCI sanction both a draft and sealed deck
>format.
<snip>
>-K Fehlberg Revolting Anarch of Denver
>Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.
>-Wisdom of the Illuminati
I will add my voice to this thread. A Sealed Deck format would be nice.
There was some conversation about using the Michigan Draft, which is not a
draft format, but a modification to Sealed deck play.
Other than a few people around here, Michigan that is, have anyone tried the
MD to run Sealed Deck play?
Dave M.
Is there enough card selection to run this type of draft? My opinion
is that the problem with jyhad is that it takes too many cards to build
an effective deck. I wouldn't recommend a new player purchase anything
less than a booster box to get into the game.
I'd guess that the density of grapple, deflection, wwef, and other
utility cards would be so low that certain deck styles would be
ineffective.
I'd anticipate intercept combat to be the most hampered, because
everyone drafts wakes, plus combat is generally harder and requires
more cards. Rush combat I would expect to finish poorly as well.
This, however, isn't the case, I read. What cards did Josh's rush deck
rely on?
I do have experience in a similar limited cardset environment. At
Dartmouth College there used to be a league, and anyone could buy into
the league with some fixed booster purchase. Free trading was
allowed. The idea was to prevent anyone from buying lots of cards to
get a better deck.
Once, the play environment became stagnant and we decided to pool all
our cards, shuffle, and deal them out again.
Unquestionably, the strongest deck was a vote deck. With intercept
less likely, a KRC vote is like a bleed for 3 at 1 stealth. Since only
vote decks tend to keep the + vote action modifiers, those are easy to
come by. I'm not at all surprised that 2 vote decks made it to the
final of the Gencon draft event.
Dan
dan.hollis.99 @ alum.dartmouth.org__nospam_please
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7pf6vj$ihi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
adz...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
>
>
> Is there enough card selection to run this type of draft?
Which Draft are you referring to? Elder Draft or GenCon Draft? Or Draft
in general?
My opinion
> is that the problem with jyhad is that it takes too many cards to
build
> an effective deck. I wouldn't recommend a new player purchase
anything
> less than a booster box to get into the game.
Hm, no. If a group starts into VTES for the first time, then it's
irrelevant how many cards each player has (as long as it's roughly the
same, not anyone having 10 times more than the rest). However, if a new
player comes into a group of veteran players, they will most likely
assist him anyway and give him plenty of cards. The best thing about
Jyhad/VTES is that you don't need all the cool rares to build an
effective (but simple) deck. :)
>
> I'd guess that the density of grapple, deflection, wwef, and other
> utility cards would be so low that certain deck styles would be
> ineffective.
Forget the "certain deck styles" if you play draft. It's completely
different to constructed, so certain deck styles simply do not exist.
There are fewer cards of the "mainstay cards" for these c.d.s.': I.G,
Bum's Rush, KRC, Majesty, etc. It's the overall selection that counts
in a draft. You have a *basic* strategy in mind and draft cards for it.
You will have to include a lot of otherwise "useless" cards (equipment,
votes, no-skill cards,...), that's the nature of a draft environment
(regardless of draft-type).
>
> I'd anticipate intercept combat to be the most hampered, because
> everyone drafts wakes, plus combat is generally harder and requires
> more cards. Rush combat I would expect to finish poorly as well.
> This, however, isn't the case, I read.
Combat is as bloody as ever. It's just different. You can't expect your
vamps to survive every combat (like you could (almost) when playing
purely I.G rush). Bianca with a Bastard Sword striking with a Lucky
Blow is a nice thing to behold, and awfully frightening in a Draft
environment. Same goes for votes: everyone will include vote-cards in
his deck, stupid if he didn't. 1 vote *makes* a difference, especially
with table talk.
Bleed? Yes there are good dom/pre bleed decks, but they tend not to be
weenie hordes or killing machines. Computer Hacking and Laptops are
very often seen OTOH. :)
[snipped]
> Unquestionably, the strongest deck was a vote deck. With intercept
> less likely, a KRC vote is like a bleed for 3 at 1 stealth. Since
only
> vote decks tend to keep the + vote action modifiers, those are easy to
> come by. I'm not at all surprised that 2 vote decks made it to the
> final of the Gencon draft event.
Hm, votes. You will also see quite a number of Sport Bikes, and
Surprise Infulence and Delying Tactics are also often seen. Gameplay
during a Draft is not as fast-paced as in a constructed. It's more
likely that you will get unexpected help from your prey or predetor
during votes. (Experienced very often.)
A Draft is a Draft is a Draft. :) There are no well-focused decks.
Players have to work with what they get, and in the case of
dom/pre/aus/obf more than 1 clan share them, so they will most likely
be split up between players. Players going heavily for bleed will
notice that there aren't that much cards for them to use available. :)
But that's what players like about Draft: it's different.
Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
<sigh>
It would have been really cool to be there.
Having just moved to NYC the weekend of GenCon, I wasn't able to play
like I did last year...
alas...
--
@#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ The Corrupter @#$ thecor...@yahoo.com $#@
Managing Editor Founder Game Theorist Geek Eccentric
www.thedojo.com Cabal Rogue Coffee Addict HSTHSTS Hedonist
@#$ WAt/WS s!2+n20~ K8c7BDdsSMAefFGhmOpRrTtWxX! X9#7 E++ pg8s9 $#@
[ quoted text not captured ]
thecor...@yahoo.com wrote in message <7q2190$mr1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
><sigh>
>
>It would have been really cool to be there.
>
>Having just moved to NYC the weekend of GenCon, I wasn't able to play
>like I did last year...
>
Have you hooked up with Marco yet?
Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)
Hi fellow Methuselahs,
Let me welcome the new VEKN Prince of Buffalo, NY
Richard Braxton (redd...@adelphia.net)
in our midst. :)
Richard, let the Jyhad rage in Buffalo!
Carl
(VEKN membership director)
[ quoted text not captured ]
For a snapshot of the GenCon V:TES tourney on thursday follow the link
below: (See if you can find the judge)
http://www.andonunlimited.com/CONS/GEN99/007/Dcp00535.jpg
Thanks,
Joe Churchill
VEKN Prince of Columbia, SC
tzim...@mindspring.com
[ quoted text not captured ]
